Decius wrote:
After watching the Frontline documentary on the surge, take a second to consider an alternate history. Consider this comment from Kerry during the 2004 Presidential debate:

KERRY: The president just talked about Iraq as a center of the war on terror.... You don't take America to war unless have the plan to win the peace... we don't have enough troops there.

Note my comment about his comments here.

If the surge is successful but isn't allowed to continue because it is politically untennable, imagine the irony, as Bush is prevented by the Democrats from doing the thing that might have worked and would have been done had he lost to the Democrats in 2004.

Ironic, perhaps, but not in a way that changes anything. Look for the R's to trumpet this very fact if they get too desperate. "EVEN YOU GUYS WERE FOR THIS!"

Unfortunately, the president and his rose colored glasses couldn't possibly be led to believe that we were in a bad situation back then. It took the whole country turning against him to force his hand. If he'd listened to anyone with a clue back in 2002, for fucks sake, everything would have turned out different. Of course, we'd still have been lied to about our motivations, but it may have at least worked. Now, in 2007, it's a bit late, to say "Oh, yeah, we should have more troops!" which people have been saying since the fucking start of this war. In other words, if it's politically untenable to make the surge work it's Bush's fault.

As it happens, I think it's technically not feasible either, which is why the politics of it don't bother me so much. I don't really think there's anything we can do to fix the place right now. We triggered the civil war, and now it's on.

RE: washingtonpost.com - Presidential Debate Between President Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry